New Delhi: A chartered accountant who threatened the crew and passengers of a Goa-Delhi Indigo flight on February 1, 2009, in mid-air by claiming that he had “infected” needles and is an official of the Directorate-General of Civil Aviation, was on Thursday convicted by a Sessions court here under the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against Safety of Civil Aviation Act of 1982.
District & Additional Sessions Judge I. S. Mehta convicted Jitender Kumar Mohla under Section 3(1)(d) of the Act for making false claims so as to endanger the safety of an aircraft in flight. Mohla was also found guilty of violating Sections 336 (endangering personal safety of others), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 170 (posing as a public servant) of the Indian Penal Code. The offence under the Safety of Civil Aviation Act is punishable with life imprisonment and also liable to a fine.
The court, however, acquitted Mohla for the offence under the Anti-Hijacking Act, noting that there was no evidence that he had entered the cockpit. “Since nothing was found in the possession of the accused at the time of his arrest and there is no evidence on record to show that the accused entered the cockpit, the prosecution case under Section 3 (2) and 4 under the Anti Hijacking Act 1992 fails,” the Judge said.
25/10/12 The Hindu
To Read the News in full at Source, Click the Headline
District & Additional Sessions Judge I. S. Mehta convicted Jitender Kumar Mohla under Section 3(1)(d) of the Act for making false claims so as to endanger the safety of an aircraft in flight. Mohla was also found guilty of violating Sections 336 (endangering personal safety of others), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 170 (posing as a public servant) of the Indian Penal Code. The offence under the Safety of Civil Aviation Act is punishable with life imprisonment and also liable to a fine.
The court, however, acquitted Mohla for the offence under the Anti-Hijacking Act, noting that there was no evidence that he had entered the cockpit. “Since nothing was found in the possession of the accused at the time of his arrest and there is no evidence on record to show that the accused entered the cockpit, the prosecution case under Section 3 (2) and 4 under the Anti Hijacking Act 1992 fails,” the Judge said.
25/10/12 The Hindu
